No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court

"The said expression cannot be construed to include a Court exercising appellate jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 30, 2026, unequivocally held that an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court. The Court observed that "no such appeal given in the statute" for a second challenge on facts and law, thereby clarifying a crucial aspect of criminal appellate jurisprudence.

The appellant, Vishnu Kumar Gupta, was initially acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, of charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved by this acquittal, the complainant (his wife) filed an appeal before the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, who reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The appellant then sought to challenge this conviction through an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which dismissed his appeal on the ground of maintainability, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether an appeal under Section 374 CrPC (or Section 415 BNSS) is maintainable against a conviction recorded for the first time by a Sessions Court exercising appellate jurisdiction, after reversing an acquittal by a Trial Court. The Court also considered the distinction between appellate and revisional powers in such a context.

Right to Appeal is a Creature of Statute

The Supreme Court reiterated the well-established principle that the right to appeal is purely a creature of statute and cannot be assumed or inferred in the absence of an express legislative provision. The Court emphasized that courts cannot, on considerations of equity or perceived legislative omissions, judicially create a right of appeal. "An appeal is a creature of a Statute and cannot lie under any inherent power."

The Meaning of 'Trial' is Contextual

The bench clarified that the term 'trial' as used in the Code of Criminal Procedure is inherently contextual, and its meaning must be construed in a manner that advances the object and purpose of the specific provision. Generally, a criminal trial commences with the framing of charges and concludes with the pronouncement of the judgment and sentence by the Trial Court.

Trial Concludes with Judgment by the Court of First Instance

The Court noted that when an accused is acquitted, the trial concludes with the passing of the acquittal order by the Trial Court. Similarly, in cases of conviction, the trial attains finality upon the pronouncement of the sentence by the court that conducted the initial proceedings. This distinction is crucial for understanding the scope of appellate remedies.

No Second Appeal Envisaged by the Statutory Framework

The Supreme Court firmly held that a comprehensive reading of the CrPC and BNSS provisions clearly indicates that an appeal of the nature sought by the appellant is not contemplated. The mere fact that a conviction is recorded for the first time by an appellate court, following an acquittal by the trial court, does not automatically create an additional right of appeal to the High Court.

Strict Interpretation of "On a Trial Held By" in Section 374 CrPC

The Court meticulously interpreted the phrase "on a trial held by" in Section 374 of the CrPC. It concluded that this expression refers to a conviction founded upon, or arising out of, a trial conducted by the court of first instance itself. It does not extend to convictions recorded by an appellate court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction to reverse an acquittal.

Jurisdiction of Trial and Appellate Courts are Distinct

The bench underscored that the functions and powers exercised by a trial court and an appellate court are fundamentally distinct. While an appeal is considered a continuation of the original proceedings and the trial court's judgment merges with that of the appellate court, these legal doctrines do not alter the intrinsic character of the jurisdiction exercised by each court. An appellate court, even when re-appreciating evidence, does so within its appellate jurisdiction, not original trial jurisdiction.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Overruled

The Supreme Court explicitly overruled the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which had allowed an appeal against a first-time conviction by a Sessions Court. The Supreme Court found that the Arun Sharma reasoning, which relied on the doctrine of continuity of proceedings, incorrectly equated appellate jurisdiction with trial jurisdiction for the purpose of Section 374 CrPC. "Thus, we hold that judgment in Arun Sharma (supra) does not lay down correct law and therefore it is over-ruled."

Revisional Jurisdiction is the Available Remedy

The Court held that in such circumstances, the only statutory remedy available to the appellant is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC (or the corresponding provisions in the BNSS). While acknowledging that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and more limited than appellate jurisdiction, it clarified its role as a safeguard against patent errors and miscarriage of justice.

High Courts Mandated to Adopt Liberal Approach in Revision

Significantly, the Supreme Court directed that High Courts, when hearing revisions against a first-time conviction recorded by an appellate court reversing an acquittal, must adopt a "more liberal and careful approach." This is because Section 401(1) of the CrPC empowers the High Court to exercise any of the powers of an appellate court during revision, ensuring the accused is not remediless.

Revisional Court Can Scrutinize Evidence and Acquit

The bench clarified that while Section 401(3) of the CrPC prohibits a High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction in revision, it does not prevent the revisional court from scrutinizing the evidence in detail to determine the legal sustainability of a conviction. If manifest illegality, perversity, or failure of justice is found, the revisional court is fully empowered to set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that no second statutory appeal lies to the High Court against a conviction rendered by a Sessions Court exercising appellate jurisdiction after reversing a trial court's acquittal. However, it granted the appellant the liberty to file a criminal revision petition before the High Court, expecting a more liberal and careful examination of such cases where the accused faces their first conviction at the appellate stage. The Court refrained from addressing the constitutionality of Rule 48 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008, regarding the surrender requirement, as it is pending adjudication before the High Court.

Date of Decision: July 30, 2026